Nicholas Stuart is a columnist with the Canberra Times.
Nick Stuart has written three books,
Kevin Rudd: An Unauthorised Political Biography;
What Goes Up: Behind the 2007 Election; and
Rudd's Way: November 2007 - June 2010.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTERS

No quibbles about the technology.

A trip to the US has left me convinced the JSF really does offer an advance on alternative fighter aircraft options for the RAAF.

The issue is to balance the cost against the need.

But, as this column for the Canberra Times points out, the decision that will emerge from this process is far from certain . . .

A FLYING PIG?

My trip to America was very nice,
thanks for asking. I had a lovely time, although one would, wouldn’t one, if
you were flying across the States and enjoying classified briefings on all the
sorts of things that excite journalists who write about national security
issues. The massive corporation manufacturing our shiny new Joint Strike Fighter,
Lockheed Martin, outdid itself, and that’s really saying something.

Although this, in itself, poses a
question. Arms manufacturers aren’t widely known for random acts of kindness.
So what was behind this sudden, spontaneous, generosity? To answer that
question it’s necessary to look beyond the surface. There’s a reason for the
corporation’s sudden demonstration of love towards fiercely independent
journalism (for which this column is renown).

So firstly, let’s get the
technical stuff out of the way. The most recent issue of the magazine Vanity Fair is only one of a number of
media outlets to pretend it’s penetrated the classified wall to discover the
‘real story’ about the JSF’s performance. It’s a good tale. Audiences love narratives
about evil corporations gouging money and providing inferior goods.
Nevertheless, and particularly if you examine the allegations in detail, they
do rather tend to fall apart. Stories about the fighter’s problems say more
about the way journalism works than they do about the top-secret aircraft
itself.

If everything’s going well
there’s no story. Problems are. In its early development years the JSF program
was plagued with difficulties. This is the first fifth-generation fighter
aircraft. Designed to push the boundaries in every way it requires an entirely
new way of thinking about aerial warfare.

Now I’m not competent to judge
what I’ve seen and heard but others are. The technical experts (and not just
the ones working for Lockheed) appear genuinely excited by the aircraft’s
capabilities. Those who understand these things (like the planes apparently
startling ability to “pull seven g’s
as soon as it’s in the air” and a capacity to “create a shared network
conversation with other assets, providing a remarkable transparency of the
battle-space”) were all nodding excitedly and displaying the eager enthusiasm
of a teenager on a first date.

There have been developmental
problems, nevertheless these appear to have been overcome. That’s where a bit
of history is relevant.

In a few weeks’ time it will be
November; exactly fifty years since President Kennedy was assassinated in
Dallas. We all know about the motorcade, and the shooting, but what’s been
forgotten is the Australian link to his death. That morning JFK was in Fort
Worth to announce details of the US’s agreement to sell us another
revolutionary aircraft, the F-111. This plane was made at exactly the same plant
as the JSF and, just like our current aircraft, was heavily criticised at the
time of purchase. Back then the bomber was nicknamed the “pig” but from the
minute it entered service it offered a spectacular breakthrough in capability –
something that only an aircraft designed at the very edges of technical
possibility could possibly hope to emulate.

The more you understand the JSF,
the more stories about its supposed underperformance are reminiscent of those
vague conspiracy theories surrounding the death of JFK. According to these
there was actually a ‘second shooter’, as well as the actual assassin. This
shooters role was to make sure the idealistic young President (who was
supposedly threatening the military-industrial complex) really was ‘taken out’.
According to this theory the real killer fired from a grassy knoll overlooking
the motorcade. This can still be seen.

The only problem is it’s not true
and no number of movies will make it accurate. It can’t be disproved but that
doesn’t mean it’s correct. And it’s much the same with the invented intrigues
surrounding the JSF. This suffered similar setbacks to that original F-111
program but good people, not just those who have reason to spruik the program,
assure us it’s now back on track and better than ever. This is the key to
understanding my trip. The real purpose wasn’t really to convince us that the
jet is terrific. Lockheed’s confident enough of the feedback it’s getting from
its customer, the RAAF, not to worry about that. The source of concern lies
elsewhere.

This is where the politics comes
in. Labor committed, in both its Defence White Papers, to buying 72 JSF’s. The coalition
has similarly gushed about the purchase’s necessity. Nothing else can do what
the JSF does. But the crunch comes in March. This is the date when numbers and
timing of the buy have to be announced. Unfortunately, there’s a new fiscal
environment. The chill winds of spending freezes are flicking around Russell
Hill. Nothing can be taken for granted.

Announcing that you’re spending big
money on the fighter – even though it’s vital and the money committed won’t
have any impact on the budget for years to come – doesn’t look good at a time
when the government is cutting elsewhere. The temptation is to try and save
money by shaving the purchase to around, say, 54. Doing this would be a
mistake.

The fighter is good; but quantity
has a quality all of its own. Three squadrons are needed to cover our North.
Two just won’t do the job. We have obtained other aircraft as interim purchases
to make up for the delay in delivery and there will be the temptation to assert
these can stand-in for the extra JSF’s. Judging from the briefings, that’s not
the case. Better-qualified people than myself will take this decision. It’s
just important they base their decision on military grounds: not the perceived
need to save money.